Slashdot Mirror
IBM Flushes Restroom Patent
jdkane writes "As reported in this CNet news article IBM has quietly eliminated a patent it received on a method for determining who gets to use the bathroom next.
I say Kudos to IBM because it is a relief (no pun intended) to see some common sense prevail in the patent news.
A funny quote from the article is "But just because the patent office granted this and other questionable patents doesn't mean the system is broken".;)"
In the article it describes what has been used in low tech meat counters ever since I can remember.
Stupid things kids do.
A funny quote from the article is "But just because the patent office granted this and other questionable patents doesn't mean the system is broken".;)"
It is tremendously important to understand that it is NOT the mission of the patent office to issue 100% valid and fully examined patents. Such an effort isn't possible, given the definition of validity. Nor is it even possible to issue 100% decent, not obviously invalid, patents. The cost of such examination would be prohibitive, and neither the government nor inventors would be willing to subsidize it.
A novelty search (which is all the office can do for the sub-thousand dollar fee it receives and examination doesn't review all, or even the best, prior art -- just what can be found with a decent, reasonable review of the search databases. Examiners in some art areas get quite good at it, because they become quickly familiar with a narrow area of art -- and in others (business methods in particular) cannot get good at it because the scope of their examinations is so wildly broad and uncategorized. The office adapts and does ok.
The system isn't broken, it is acting pretty much as designed. Some places it works better than others, but that is the nature of a human process. The question is not whether bad patents exist (they do), but whether bad patents cause more bad, on balance, than good patents cause good. While that is a reasonable question for debate, it is different from observing from the failure of a few individual examples the supposed bankrupcy of a system at large.
This is something like saying that the entirety of a Unix system is bad, because it contains a single design failure or because it contains a single bug. We know it has both -- and yet we use it because it is an excellent environment in which to work and be productive.
(By the way, tha vast majority of spectacularly whacky patents issue, in part, because they are deemed "harmless" or "mostly harmless" by the examiner -- and unworthy of substantive waste of government resources. )